Pillar College Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
453912932
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Newark, NJ, USA
Phone
9738035000
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Education N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$14,533,456
Expenses
$13,693,174
Assets
$4,608,940
Liabilities
$4,087,789

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DR DAVID SCHROEDER (PRESIDENT)
  • CINDY WEAVER (VICE PRESIDENT FOR FINANCE/CFO)

Highest reported compensation

  • DR DAVID SCHROEDER (PRESIDENT): $203,404 total reported compensation
  • GISELLE LLERENA (PROVOST): $106,061 total reported compensation
  • CINDY WEAVER (VICE PRESIDENT FOR FINANCE/CFO): $103,148 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Pillar college is an independent, faith-based, 4 year institution of higher education licensed by the state of New Jersey and accredited by middle states commission on higher education and the association of biblical higher education.

What it reported doing in 2024

Pillar college is the only accredited, private christian college in New Jersey. Pillar college was founded in 1908 and established and chartered by the New Jersey commission on higher education in 2001. We are located in newark, somerset and paterson, New Jersey. The unduplicated head count for fye 25 was 657 undergraduate and 46 graduate students. The college offers the following degrees: master of arts in counseling and ministry leadership, an mba in social sector management, bachelor of arts in biblical studies, business administration & management, elementary education, intercultural communication, organizational leadership, and psychology and counseling, and associate of arts in general studies.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 96% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 61% for direct work, and 39% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 52
  • Transparency & Controls: 85
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 38
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 55.8%; rating input score 56
  • Program expense ratio: 59.3%; rating input score 59
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.71 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 5.8%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.34; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.89; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3%; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.6% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.7% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 55.8% of revenue deployed · 59.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $8.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $203K · 22 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $122K reported
  • Consistency: 36 of 37 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 10 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 filed related-organization links
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 56/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 10/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 9/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 56/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 10/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.